One would have to be a fool to argue that the image quality from a current high end FF camera and top quality lens is not better than that out of a reduced sensor size camera with an EF-S or micro 4/3 lens, but image quality is not everything to everyone.

Most consumers are not willing to pay $3000+ for a camera body or $1000+ for a lens. Most consumers want something physically smaller that they can carry around. Most consumers will be happy with "good enough", not "absolute best" image because they are not prepared to pay the penalty to go to the next level.

Of course the future will change..... does anyone think that things will stay the same with technology?

I really don't understasnd how some people have read into this that APS-C will change into FF. The bulk of the camera buying public is far more interested in smaller and lighter and more megapixels...WiFi and GPS and shooting video have more appeal to them than debates over pixel well sizes, bayer filters, 180nm manufacturing technology, or whatever. Face up to it.... we are the geeks, we are the abnormal ones, we are the ones out of touch with what the majority see as reality.

So what is the future of APS-C? The future is that it will be the bulk of Canon sales. Most of those sales will be Rebels and mirrorless.... there will be various models with various capacities and whatever the higher end one does or is called, it will be the "Pro-APS-C" model.

One would have to be a fool to argue that the image quality from a current high end FF camera and top quality lens is not better than that out of a reduced sensor size camera with an EF-S or micro 4/3 lens, but image quality is not everything to everyone.

Most consumers are not willing to pay $3000+ for a camera body or $1000+ for a lens. Most consumers want something physically smaller that they can carry around. Most consumers will be happy with "good enough", not "absolute best" image because they are not prepared to pay the penalty to go to the next level.

Of course the future will change..... does anyone think that things will stay the same with technology?

I really don't understasnd how some people have read into this that APS-C will change into FF. The bulk of the camera buying public is far more interested in smaller and lighter and more megapixels...WiFi and GPS and shooting video have more appeal to them than debates over pixel well sizes, bayer filters, 180nm manufacturing technology, or whatever. Face up to it.... we are the geeks, we are the abnormal ones, we are the ones out of touch with what the majority see as reality.

So what is the future of APS-C? The future is that it will be the bulk of Canon sales. Most of those sales will be Rebels and mirrorless.... there will be various models with various capacities and whatever the higher end one does or is called, it will be the "Pro-APS-C" model.

I am myself looking forward to trying the Fuji X-E1 or maybe X-E2 (or the Olympus OM-D EM-5), and will definitely buy the Fuji X20 when it's out. The EOS-M would be great, but both the lack of a viewfinder and the reported slow AF put me off. I love my 60D and will keep it for now (if fact I'll probably buy a 7D, be it mk1 or 2, and sell the 60D because it lacks AFMA), but if I have a smaller camera that can give me usable ISO 3200 I'll probably use it 80+% of the time. By then, I'll be able to decide whether I should keep the 60D/7D or not.

A 2x crop sensor would have even more reach. I think it is more important what camera sensors can deliver "sufficient" quality for the applications that most customers care about, what camera systems can deliver the right lenses at the right price etc.

It might well be that well see m43 and FF, but APS-C will disappear. After all, it is a fairly recent format and there are not _that_ many good lenses designed especially for it (but many lenses that work for both crop and FF).

-h

Yes. But Canon has shown their hand with the EOS-M, that they will stay with APS-C for a couple of generations of cameras. Why create the M-mount otherwise? It is made to optimize size for APS-C. Thats a LOT of intent going into a sensor size. The M-lenses will ALL be designed for the APS-C sensor.

Sure, they could adopt a 4/3 sensor. Or Nikons 2.7X. But they didn't.And, being Canon, probably won't do it unless FORCED to. That is why I believe the APS-C sensor has many years left.

Sticking with APS-C for the M series makes a lot of sense for Canon. They can base the lenses for their mirrorless cameras on EF-S and EF designs. It's a lot easier to alter a lens design for a different image plane setback than it is to design a whole series of lenses based on a different sensor size. Plus, they can tout the larger sensor as having inherently better quality than a micro 4/3 sized sensor.

I am myself looking forward to trying the Fuji X-E1 or maybe X-E2 (or the Olympus OM-D EM-5), and will definitely buy the Fuji X20 when it's out. The EOS-M would be great, but both the lack of a viewfinder and the reported slow AF put me off. I love my 60D and will keep it for now (if fact I'll probably buy a 7D, be it mk1 or 2, and sell the 60D because it lacks AFMA), but if I have a smaller camera that can give me usable ISO 3200 I'll probably use it 80+% of the time. By then, I'll be able to decide whether I should keep the 60D/7D or not.

I shot 4/3 before making the jump to Canon. I jumped because I liked the long glass and the IQ of the Canons ( ended up with a 60D) more than the oly's.... At that point OLY was going to micre 4/3 and the lenses and user interface (at least for me) were terrible. As things now stand... the latest micro 4/3 have a marginally better IQ than the 60D and better high ISO performance.... a complete turnaround from 3 years ago.

I still prefer the Canon user interface and there are still no decent long lenses for micro 4/3 or 4/3..... but there is supposed to be a new 4/3 camera coming out soon that would retain the good user interface of the 4/3 bodies and promisses slightly better than APS-c IQ and ISO. The 4/3 12-60 and 50-200 lenses are as good as canon Lglass and weather sealed to boot! The new 4/3 is also supposed to be weather sealed....

In other words.... a pro level small sensor camera! Olympus thinks there is a market....

yeah that rat that jumped off the empire state building just hit the ground

Oooh ... Post some pics

Bright sun on the side of the building, deep black beady little rodent eyes and have to push the exposure 4 stops to see the detail in the matted fur. Gonna need at least 14.4 stops of DR, better not use a Canon.

Sigh.... in the great Canon/Nikon debate you forget other, and more relavant, cameras.... The hot technology here is GoPro.... glued onto the rat's ass and shooting 240 frames per second all the way down....

As soon as you post a link to an example of some of your best, or your favorite work, I will do the same. I don't think I'm one of the best ever, like you seem to see yourself...so the bar is higher on your end.

Um no, I don't care about your test comparisons anymore, I was just referring to your own work...as in, what you liked best, or think is best, or what your customers or clients liked best (of your own shots). I don't need RAW files, just something you have done that is good photography. Considering your years of experience, I just thought I would get to see some nice photography, and learn how to be a better photo artist.

Is there any chance a mod could split this thread into two...the original thread up to the point Mikael came in with the screenshot of the D800 v.s 5D III, and everything from Mikael's post on in another thread...maybe "D800 vs. 5D III - The Truth"? This was a great thread until Mikael derailed it again. It would be nice not to lose the thread and the prior discussion due to the new debate.

And what gets me, is that original screenshot was a 5D TWO vs. a D800...not 5D3. Or that's how I read it when I looked again, I could be wrong. Either way, I don't care. I've lifted my own little camera's files 2 or 3 stops with less noise than that, and at higher ISO. The end result isn't perfect, but it's usable.

I can't imagine doing 5 stops worth of negative compensation on anything, nor having the need or desire to. It's interesting to look at and talk about for an hour...but not for days. How often do you need to include a diffuse sky with the sun in it?

Most of the time, the sun is either more hidden than that by clouds, or fully out in a clear sky, or not even in the shot. In all those cases, you sure wouldn't waste time underexposing by 5 stops at ISO 100. What other shots need that much DR? Like where race car headlights are shining directly into the lens at sunset? Nobody cares.

In the summer here, even the same sky would be blown out worse, if you attempted to do the same thing. 5 stops wouldn't be enough. Has anyone in the USA noticed, that on a bright sunny day in winter time, there is about half as much light as there is on a bright sunny day in June? In June, it almost seems like the sun gets brighter each year. I can't imagine how bright it is closer to the equator. One day I'll find out, haha.

I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)

Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...

......... But perhaps more interesting is how it is going to differentiate itself as an expensive crop camera when there are FF cameras available at far lower prices now than there were in 2009. The simple answer would be "sports, birds-in-flight", but the 5Dmk3 is far more suited for those things than the 5Dmk2 was.

-h

Previous the entry FF (5D MKII) was cheaper than the crop for birding / sports (1D MKIV). So it is possible to introduce a crop for sports / birding (7D MK II) for a higher price as the entry FF (6D). The question is: how much more ....and.... is it on par or better than the 1D MK IV? If the latter, than for sure the price will go up to 5DMKIII level - maybe even higher.

I agree on the high end EF-S lenses. The most blatant omission at the moment is in the telephoto range. A competitor to Sigmas 50-150 HSM OS springs to mind, or a telephoto prime in the 200-500 range with the weight reduction advantage of EF-S. (not as probable though)

Releasing one such lens would also reinforce the marketing of 7D2 as a sports/wildlife camera...

There is a lack of long ef-s lenses... I would like to see some longer efs primes ( not zooms) but rather doubt I will see them as the masses prefer zoom lenses. Perhaps after some quality zooms come out, but certainly not before.

It may be about the right time or a "digic 6" to arrive... A 7D2 with digic6, new sensor technology, wifi, GPS, touchscreen AND decent button/dial controls would kick! And if were to include features from Magic Lantern it would annihilate the competition.

And, of course, the 70D.... Even if they gave it a better digic, added the gimmicks like wifi and GPS, kept the articulated screen, it would still be a nice camera.... But once again, learn from Magic Lantern and add in some decent features through software.... Set yourself apart from the rabble (rebel ).